지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Korea has been used ‘The guideline of evaluation for abuse of the intellectual property’ which was established August, 30th 2000 to prevent overuse of the rights. Specially, for the disapproval of the intellectual property license, the guide line of the seventeenth Clause of Article III indicated that ① the disapproval on the unacceptance of the unfair trade matter and ② the disapproval on the essential industrial property were violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(hereinafter Fair Trade Act). In case of ①, the regulation was set up to remove disadvantage from the action of refusal for the compulsion of the unfair trade. It is very appropriate for the purpose of the fair trade Act to insure fair trade discipline and competition regularity. In case of ②, it is a clear indication that what is called ‘theory of essential Facility Theory’ could be applied to the disapproval of the intellectual property license.
On the other hand, the guide line is not fully sufficient to have reasonable control for the new and various instances of the fair trade violation, specifically, for the disapproval of the individual trade. Therefore, there is a necessity to establish reasonable regulations for the control by modelling the EU and Japanese regulations. Followings were summaries of important contents which need to be included in the new guide line substituting the conclusion.
First, there is a necessity to establish a new regulation and/or complement the old regulation of the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license. Hitherto, the opinion that the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license is an action within the rights of an individual who possess the intellectual property license has been common. But, as the case of EU and Japanese, the disapproval of a individual trade need be a subject of application of the Fair Trade Act in case of a negative influence to the market.
Second, in case of the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license which is acquired from other person, the possibility of violation of the Fair Trade Act increase significantly. In case of the disapproval of the fair trade which effects previous market competition system, it must be considered as a violation of the Fair Trade Act if there was no acceptable reason. Because It would be viewed as beyond limits of the grantee's exclusive rights which comes from the acquisition of the intellectual property license. Naturally, in case of an imposition of usage fee within the reasonable range and an action within the limitation of the rights of the intellectual property license, it is not a violation of the Fair Trade Act.
Third, there is necessity to classify whether it is a violation of the law or not among the actions that a person who possesses the intellectual property license disapprove a trade. At least, there is a necessity to elucidate that the action is not a violation of the Fair Trade Act through setting up a Safe Harbor clause as in the New EU Regulation - TTBER. This indicates the necessity that the person who possesses the intellectual property license deserves to have a consideration to prevent withering to exercise their rights. The necessity of the policy application of the Fair Trade Act enlarges when the prevention is more important than following solution.
Forth, in case of the Grant Back clause and the No Dispute clause, by individual evaluation, in other word, the decision of violation the Fair Trade Act need to be precise by comparing the factors of competition limits and competition promotions. In addition, there is a necessity to specify that there is no violation of the law in a regular case.
Fifth, In a cross license contract, between the competitors, the Grant Back clause would have a negative influence to the technological reform by imposing the duty of public ownership for the improved technology. Therefore, detailed regulations need to establish for the cross license.
On the other hand, the guide line is not fully sufficient to have reasonable control for the new and various instances of the fair trade violation, specifically, for the disapproval of the individual trade. Therefore, there is a necessity to establish reasonable regulations for the control by modelling the EU and Japanese regulations. Followings were summaries of important contents which need to be included in the new guide line substituting the conclusion.
First, there is a necessity to establish a new regulation and/or complement the old regulation of the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license. Hitherto, the opinion that the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license is an action within the rights of an individual who possess the intellectual property license has been common. But, as the case of EU and Japanese, the disapproval of a individual trade need be a subject of application of the Fair Trade Act in case of a negative influence to the market.
Second, in case of the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license which is acquired from other person, the possibility of violation of the Fair Trade Act increase significantly. In case of the disapproval of the fair trade which effects previous market competition system, it must be considered as a violation of the Fair Trade Act if there was no acceptable reason. Because It would be viewed as beyond limits of the grantee's exclusive rights which comes from the acquisition of the intellectual property license. Naturally, in case of an imposition of usage fee within the reasonable range and an action within the limitation of the rights of the intellectual property license, it is not a violation of the Fair Trade Act.
Third, there is necessity to classify whether it is a violation of the law or not among the actions that a person who possesses the intellectual property license disapprove a trade. At least, there is a necessity to elucidate that the action is not a violation of the Fair Trade Act through setting up a Safe Harbor clause as in the New EU Regulation - TTBER. This indicates the necessity that the person who possesses the intellectual property license deserves to have a consideration to prevent withering to exercise their rights. The necessity of the policy application of the Fair Trade Act enlarges when the prevention is more important than following solution.
Forth, in case of the Grant Back clause and the No Dispute clause, by individual evaluation, in other word, the decision of violation the Fair Trade Act need to be precise by comparing the factors of competition limits and competition promotions. In addition, there is a necessity to specify that there is no violation of the law in a regular case.
Fifth, In a cross license contract, between the competitors, the Grant Back clause would have a negative influence to the technological reform by imposing the duty of public ownership for the improved technology. Therefore, detailed regulations need to establish for the cross license.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 경쟁법과 지적재산권의 관계
Ⅲ. EU의 지적재산권 라이센스에 관한 신규칙
Ⅳ. 일본의 지적재산의 이용에 관한 독점금지법의 지침
Ⅴ. 우리 법에의 시사점
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (1)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Fair Trade and The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in U.S.-Korean Economic Relations
저스티스
1987 .12
-
상표권 라이선스의 공정화를 위한 심사지침의개정방안 연구
원광법학
2014 .01
-
공정무역의 규범적 정립과 윤리적 접근 : 시장적 논리와 형평적 논리의 비교 연구
관세학회지
2007 .08
-
Does Fair Trade Lead Consumers to Purchase the Products? : Why are Some Consumers Unwilling to Buy Fair Trade Products?
사회적가치와 기업연구
2009 .12
-
라이선스 남용과 독점규제법 적용의 한계 : 영미의 사례를 중심으로
기업법연구
2006 .06
-
윤리적 소비주의 관점에서 Fair Trade가 소비자 행동에 미치는 영향
경영학연구
2009 .02
-
국제라이선스계약상 경쟁제한조항에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2014 .12
-
독일의 무역전시 산업정책에 관한 연구
한국무역학회 학술대회
2005 .04
-
독일의 무역전시 산업정책에 관한 연구 : 독일 정부의 해외전시지원정책을 중심으로
무역학회지
2005 .08
-
공정무역의 한계와 그 원인에 대한 연구
무역상무연구
2017 .02
-
전자무역 구현특성에 따른 성과측정 지표 연구
인터넷전자상거래연구
2009 .06
-
인지특성이 전자무역 활용수준과 성과에 미치는 영향 연구
인터넷전자상거래연구
2006 .12
-
소프트웨어 라이선스 관리시스템의 설계 및 구현 : K사 사례를 중심으로
Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management
2013 .09
-
Issues in Korean Trade 1999
[KIEP] 연구보고서
2000 .04
-
e-L/C 활성화 과제에 관한 연구
인터넷전자상거래연구
2007 .12
-
특허권행사와 공정거래행위간의 합리적 이익균형
법학연구
2012 .12
-
e-Trade Models and Korean e-Trade Companies
무역학자 전국대회 발표논문집
2005 .08
-
무역관련 지적재산권 제도에 관한 연구
사회과학연구
2002 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
EU의 지적재산권의 보장과 경쟁법상의 제문제 : EU 마이크로소프트 사건을 중심으로
장경원
지식재산연구
2009
.12
독점금지법과 지적재산권 라이센스
한지영
비교사법
2005
.12
끼워팔기(Tying)와 결합판매(Bundling)의 규제법리의 비교와 규제체계 정립에 관한 고찰
홍명수
규제연구
2006
.06
표준필수특허(SEPs)의 FRAND 실시료 산정 기준에 관한 연구
권영관
지식재산연구
2016
.06
표준필수기술 선정절차에서 기만적 FRAND 확약을 제출한 특허권자의 권리실행 제한에 관한 연구
오승한
지식재산연구
2012
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498373